A. Sandler Co. v. Portland Shoe Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.
This action was brought by a trustee writ. When it was entered the declaration contained two counts. The first count was for libel. The second count, we will assume in favor of the plaintiff, but without deciding, was for malicious interference with the procuring of a contract and not for libel. After the entry of the writ and before the defendant had appeared, the plaintiff procured ex parte the allowance of a substitute declaration in a single count which we will likewise assume was not for libel. A motion by the defendant to dismiss was denied, but thereafter, during the trial of the case…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Poorvu v. WeisbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Cheney v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Guarino v. RussoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- MacCormac v. HannanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re MayberryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Buono v. NardellaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
- Redfield v. Abbott Shoe Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Mulloney v. MullinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Briant v. Eugene Engineering Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.